Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
George W. Bush Deserves To GO. (WH = Liars)  
User currently offlineSFOintern From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 770 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 1721 times:

Published on Wednesday, March 3, 2004 by the St. Petersburg Times
After Pigeon Inspections, Bush Eats Crow
by Bill Maxwell

If so many lives had not been lost and were not still being lost each day, the Bush administration's weapons of mass destruction faux-intelligence campaign leading up to the invasion of Iraq would be laughable.

The report by the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) confirms what the U.S. government's own inspectors, led by David Kay, found: Saddam Hussein did not have WMDs and had not had any of a threat to his neighbors or the United States since 1991. The maligned UNMOVIC inspectors, all U.N. diplomats and arms-control experts, are trying to keep straight faces.

Demetrius Perricos, acting head of the U.N. inspection team, is speaking to the press for the first time since Kay declared that Iraq had no banned weapons. Before the invasion, Perricos and his team were belittled by the Bush administration because they were not producing appropriate results.

"For a lot of people who were negative because they didn't know, the impact from David Kay's pronouncement has started them to realize that there was expertise in UNMOVIC, that we were not incompetent," Perricos told USA Today.

UNMOVIC's study is the first independent one to assess intelligence on Iraq's WMDs. The group's only job since 1994 was to keep an eye on Iraqi weapons, yet the Bush team dismissed UNMOVIC's efforts.

"Of all the organizations that were looking at Iraq's weapons capability, the group that got the closest to the truth were the U.N. inspectors - by a long shot," said Jon Wolfsthal, a weapons expert for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

UNMOVIC inspectors learned before the invasion that U.S. intelligence tips amounted to a comedy of errors. The tips were almost always flawed or outright wrong. In one case, the review states, U.N. inspectors tried to verify a U.S. tip that a WMD site was disguised as a chicken farm. After UNMOVIC agents descended on the site under cover of darkness, they learned a stinky truth: The site was a chicken farm, complete with the mess and stench of chickens. Again following a U.S. tip, U.N. inspectors raided a farmhouse, believing they would find a cache of WMDs because their detectors signaled traces of banned substances. The weapons they found were conventional munitions allowed by the U.N. As to the traces of banned substances, the inspectors' equipment was reacting to sulfur from pigeons and their droppings.

Perricos and his colleagues have every right to feel vindicated by the new report, and they should be forgiven for gloating. USA Today reports that Perricos was in Iraq in November 2002, when the U.N. inspection team was part of the United States-led move to give Hussein one last chance to disarm. Before Perricos could prepare a report, Bush officials were on the Sunday morning talk circuit blasting Perricos and his inspectors for treating Hussein with kid's gloves.

A mere six weeks before the invasion, Secretary of State Colin Powell intoned on ABC's This Week that the president saw no further use for U.N. "inspectors to play detectives or Inspector Clouseau running all over Iraq." Powell's was a low blow because Clouseau is the blundering Peter Sellers character in the Pink Panther flicks.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld predicted in August 2002 that UNMOVIC inspections "will be a sham." History has shown, however, that Rumsfeld and U.S. intelligence were the sham.

Still stinging from Kay's report of several weeks ago, the president and his handlers are wary of the U.N. review, which was seven years in the making. Its findings also vindicate those that Hans Blix, former chief U.N. arms inspector, and Mohammed El-Baradei, head of the United Nations' nuclear monitoring agency, submitted to the U.N. Security Council before the war.

Again, the administration's comedy of errors would be laughable if so many lives and other resources were not invested. Perhaps Bush and his supporters will look back one day and realize that the United Nations, which the administration marginalized during the buildup to this war of choice, remains the world's most important and viable institution for peace and stability.

Bush and his team of hawks now find themselves crawling before the Security Council, the same group that was declared irrelevant little more than a year ago. Ironically, even as the ink dries on Iraq's first national constitution, the Bush administration must depend on the United Nations for success after America pulls out in June. This is a bitter pill for the president to swallow, but swallow it he must. He should have heeded the advice of the United Nations and its arms inspectors from the start. He deserves to eat crow.

© Copyright 2002-2004 St. Petersburg Times



24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 1, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1683 times:

"Do you want some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. Bush?" Big grin

User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1674 times:

"Do you want some freedom fries with your crow, Mr. Bush?"

I'd rather give him a nice bottle of French wine, some Russian caviar, and some German Brats to chew on for a bit.  Big grin


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1673 times:

@SFOintern
dont you dare posting communist propaganda against The President!
if you dont like america go back to russia where your propaganda comes from!



10=2
User currently offlineSebolino From France, joined May 2001, 3682 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1663 times:

dont you dare posting communist propaganda against The President

LOL.

As I see, when the "average" American has no argument, the word "communist" still comes to save him. This good old MacCarthy !


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1658 times:

Question: Did UNMOVIC ever declare Iraq free of weapons? If yes, why were UN resolutions still being passed right up until late 2002? If no, why?

Charles


User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 6, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1643 times:

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein...The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Senator John Kerry, D-Mass, Jan 23, 2003.

...and countless other quotes retrievable if you take a minute to search.

"Pit-stop the tired wagon and put on some from fresh tires". Respectfully and humbly, myself, USA citizen, R-Mich, Mar 8, 2004.

Regards...Jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 7, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1635 times:

The UNMOVIC inspections were pushed aside before they had a chance to complete their inquiry. But up to that point, they provided accurate information and effectively discovered and destroyed prohibited programs while the Bush administration´s claims to the contrary proved to be wrong on all counts. Could it be any clearer?

An public apology would be in order.


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

Question: Did UNMOVIC ever declare Iraq free of weapons?

Gee, Mr. Bush...er, I mean, Cfalk, they didn't get a chance-they were run out of the country before they were finished, so Bush could start his war. Lord knows, we didn't want the TRUTH about WMD's to get in the way of his war.

The resolution passed, Cfalk, was to verify if Saddam was in compliance. The inspections were abruptly halted, because it was time for a war. Got it?


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1632 times:

@sebolino

i hope the irony in my posting did not escape you  Smile



10=2
User currently offlineGo Canada! From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 2955 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1628 times:

Alpha the point worth making is that even 1441 said iraq had wmds and was in breach of un resolutions. Even fracne and germany did not say iraq has no WMD whatsoever. It is a massive failure of intelligence or the WMDS are somewhere. The war was based on non complience with the un resolutuons, if only our idiot leaders had kept to that they would have saved themselves problems.

If they had said. Saddams Evil. Saddam kills his own people. he supports terrorists. He has the means to produce weapons. We dont know if he has much weaponery but if we dont remove him he will do so. Saddam has WMD programmes and he is breaking UN law because he hasnt complied with the resoultions then I think we would all have more respect for the us and the uk.

I still think the war was right for those reasons but I can see everyones point when they are annoyed with goverments who made it out(especially the british gov) that saddam could kill us in in five seconds flat when in fact he couldnt.



It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1626 times:

The UNMOVIC inspections were pushed aside before they had a chance to complete their inquiry.

they didn't get a chance-they were run out of the country before they were finished,


So, 12 years was not enough time?

Remember that Saddam did not want UNMOVIC to declare him weapons-free. The embargo would still be on today if the war had not started - I am quite certain of that - and they would still be in force for many years to come.

Charles


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

Alpha the point worth making is that even 1441 said iraq had wmds and was in breach of un resolutions.

1441 laid out that Iraq needed to surrender to inspections or face further UN action. The Bush Administration did not even let the inspections run their full course. Bush wanted his war, and he wasn't going to let WMD's stop him. The fact that he has cited other "reasons", post-facto the failed hunt for WMD's is evidence that he intended to push the war no matter what.

So, 12 years was not enough time?

Duh, Cfalk, unless you know something we don't, inspections weren't running for that 12 years. They ran after the '91 war, when Iraq did get rid of some munitions, then they ceased. And no, the amount of time Bush gave the UN Inspectors wasn't enough, but then the Adminnistration had the audacity, even after months of having Iraq in its possession, to beg the world for "patience" in finding WMD's. Hypocritical to say the least.

Inspections weren't going on for 12 years, so your cry of "12 years wasn't enough time" is inaccurate, to say the least.

This war should never have been fought when it was, under the circumstances that it came to be. Had the U.S. shown a little patience, and waited just one more year, or even six months, the U.S. would not have come out being seen as the bully. Instead of letting pressure build, and let Saddam look like the bully, the U.S. pre-empted the whole thing in it's haste to go to war, thus engendering a worldfull of comtempt.

[Edited 2004-03-08 17:03:15]

User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

Duh, Cfalk, unless you know something we don't, inspections weren't running for that 12 years

Hmmm... 2003 minus 1991 = 12. Don't tell me that 1998-2002 do not count. Ask the Iraqis who starved to death during that time if they don't count. The U.N. simply was not effective in getting their people in there and with the ability to look wherever they wanted, when they wanted, how they wanted, and in the numbers needed.

I still consider it a logical impossibility for UNMOVIC to have declared Iraq weapons-free as long as Saddam was in power and the unaccounted for WMD materials fully accounted for by positive evidence. Positive evidence is, of course, not simply "we did not find any".

Let me remind you that those materials are still unaccounted for. I would still like to know where they are. Or are you willing to simply throw up your hands and assume that they have simply ceased to exist. That would be the lazy way out, but logically and morally untidy.

Charles


User currently offlineAlpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1605 times:

Hmmm... 2003 minus 1991 = 12. Don't tell me that 1998-2002 do not count.

Charles, you're smarter than that, so don't play dumb. Physical inspections for banned munitions WAS NOT going on for 12 years. There was 12 years between 1991 and 2003, but after the inspections of '91, following the Gulf War, they ceased, did they not? And they didn't resume in earnest until early last year, then, when Bush decided it was time to go to war for some nice re-election PR, he told the UN to get lost, and to pull the inspectors out.

Let me remind you that those materials are still unaccounted for. I would still like to know where they are. Or are you willing to simply throw up your hands and assume that they have simply ceased to exist. That would be the lazy way out, but logically and morally untidy.

Maybe they're "unaccounted for" because they simply aren't there. The time has long passed when the credibility of these stockpiles of weapons that Bush, Blair, Powell, Rummey, et al, said were in Iraq has evaporated.

So what you're telling me that less than 3 months of UN inspections, that turned up nothing, I might add, is to be sloughed off, and was a waste of time, but we should give the Administration a blank check of time to find SOMETHING that will somehow justify the war? And what justifies it now, Charles, on the WMD end? One vial of anything? Maybe you're that gullible, but I am not.

[Edited 2004-03-08 17:07:58]

User currently offlineCptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1595 times:

Maybe Alpha1 has a point. Let's see...add another 12 years to 2003; that would be, what, 2015 or thereabouts? Yeah, we should've let Saddam go until 2015 before we determined (against the UN's judgements, of course) that twenty-four years was enough time.

Did I say "enough"? "Enough" of this shit already! Regards...Jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineSFOintern From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 770 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1590 times:

Cptkrell, the reason why you can cite all these quotes from top Democrats doesn't really help your argument. They didn't expect to be downright LIED to be the President of the United States. After all, the White House did say they had "CIA intelligence" and countless other crap on this matter.

Maybe, Mr. Michigan Republican, you should pitstop your wagon and take a look outside and see what our disaster of a President has done to our great country in a mere four years.

*******
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein...The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." Senator John Kerry, D-Mass, Jan 23, 2003.

...and countless other quotes retrievable if you take a minute to search.

"Pit-stop the tired wagon and put on some from fresh tires". Respectfully and humbly, myself, USA citizen, R-Mich, Mar 8, 2004.

Regards...Jack


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1565 times:

Cptkrell, the reason why you can cite all these quotes from top Democrats doesn't really help your argument. They didn't expect to be downright LIED to be the President of the United States. After all, the White House did say they had "CIA intelligence" and countless other crap on this matter.

The Congress has access to all the intel the president has. It's the law. They did not depend on what the Prez told them.

Charles


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

It is so nice to see that someone can copy and paste DNC talking points to create yet another anti-Bush thread.  Yeah sure
_____________________________________________________

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Saddam was the one required to prove he did not have any illegal weapons. For whatever reason he refused and he paid the price.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1556 times:

in regard to your signature b757300
"Saddam was the one required to prove he did not have any illegal weapons. For whatever reason he refused and he paid the price"

does "in dubio pro reo" ring a bell? wait justice is only an obstacle for the "right" way anyway isnt it.



10=2
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

does "in dubio pro reo" ring a bell? wait justice is only an obstacle for the "right" way anyway isnt it.

English pls.

Charles


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1537 times:

It´s not generally known in the US?

It´s only the foundation of modern justice: "When in doubt, decide in favour of the accused!"


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1530 times:

Sorry, but I dropped out of Latin some 25 years ago.

I remind you that Saddam/Iraq was not the "accused". They were the "guilty" - following Saddam's repeated attacks on neighbors and numerous uses of WMDs, and corresponding resolutions at the UN which declared him a menace to world society, and imposed on him the punishment of verifiably disarming.

Your proposal is like, if a paroled convict does not show up for his meeting with his parole officer, that's OK, because you must assume that he's not up to any trouble.

Charles


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21521 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1522 times:

Disarmament would have to be "credible", not "theoretically absolute" as some seem to believe.

And as it turns out, there were a few transgressions, most minor, one significant (the Al Samoud missile program);

But other than that, it has turned out that the early-1990s inspections were obviously highly effective in crippling the WMD programs Iraq has had before and the embargo and the pre-war inspections further cemented these limitations.

If the inspections would have run their course as intended, the result would have been - as far as we know by now - that Iraq did indeed have some prohibited activities for which a response would have been in order, but that response could certainly not have been an all-out war.

There would have been a basis to change the treatment of the Saddam regime and even impose more intrusive measures, but all that was blown to bits by the blustering Bush administration.

What we have now is just the confirmation of the validity of UNMOVICs work and the obvious inviability of the unilateral invasive approach.

All in all, were it not for the chaos and the victims of the invasion and the new hatred stirred up in large parts of the world, it would even be a positive development.


User currently offlineZak From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, RR: 8
Reply 24, posted (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

" They were the "guilty" "

to stick with english for now, i wonder how saddam was found guilty without having been on trial once?
saddam was a bastard and would have surely been deemed guilty in a fair trial.
but there has never been a trial, nor has there been an attempt to try him (for example on the ICJ).
hence saddam is not guilty, since you can not legally be guilty without trial.



10=2
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
An Open Letter To George Bush posted Thu Apr 27 2006 18:11:22 by Columba
George Bush Puts US Navy To Sleep..... posted Sat Dec 10 2005 00:01:24 by BMIFlyer
So Nice To See Arabs Voting--Good Luck George Bush posted Sun Jan 30 2005 08:16:30 by RJpieces
What If Kerry Changed His Name To 'George W. Bush' posted Fri Sep 3 2004 22:47:40 by WellHung
Happy Birthday To President George H W Bush posted Sat Jun 12 2004 14:55:21 by 727LOVER
George Bush To Jump Out Of A Perfectly Good...... posted Tue Jun 8 2004 21:16:50 by L-188
Bush Urged Not To Go Back To UN posted Sun Mar 23 2003 04:06:31 by Delta-flyer
Bill Parcells--Time To Go? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 01:26:50 by Texdravid
George Bush Joke, Enjoy! posted Fri Oct 6 2006 21:46:55 by Luv2fly
Snapshot: Foley Hurting GOP, Bush Down To 36% posted Fri Oct 6 2006 19:46:57 by Falcon84